Thursday, February 5, 2015

The Vineyard of the Saker: From Napoleon to Adolf Hitler to Conchita Wurst

The EU met again and, with the Greek vote, they prolonged more sanctions on Russia. In the meantime, the EU-backed junta is continuing to kill scores of civilians in Novorussia every day. And while for "Charlie", we saw millions in the streets, nobody seems to care. Worse, the EU is backing the Nazis murderers (I won't even mention the USA).

This is tragic in more then one way. Of course, this is tragic for the people of Novorussia, but it is no less tragic for the Ukrainian people how now are living under a Nazi regime with no foreseeable hope for change. This is also tragic for the Russian people who are suffering the economic consequences of the sanctions. And, of course, this is tragic for the people of Europe who are also suffering from these (self-defeating) sanctions. But there is something else happening which might have very long lasting consequences.

For three centuries the Russian elites were more or less split into two camps: pro-western and anti-western. Of course in those days, "West" meant western Europe, not the USA or central Europe.

Russia's European "friends" - a short reminder

The pro-European camp was formed by the new elites created by Czar Peter I to impose his reforms on the Russian people, and by the late 19th early 20th century, the pro-western camp was almost in total control of Russia. Then, the Soviet era more or less blurred these categories as ideology became central. While one could argue that the Trotskists were de-facto pro-western, they were such a small subset of the Bolshevik party which itself was such a tiny part of the Russian population that I don't think we can speak of pro-western factions inside the Bolshevik or Communist party. Not even Khrushchev, certainly the worst leader the USSR ever had, was really pro-western. I think that the first pro-western Soviet leader was also the last one, Gorbachev. But after 1991, the vast majority of Russians, tired of ideological tensions, tired of a Cold War they did not want, tired of being seen as the enemies of Europe sincerely desired to become part of the West and finally set aside the past.

We all know what happened then. For a full decade, the West maintained a degenerate regime of oligarchs, CIA puppets and thugs in power while NATO advanced on all fronts. Instead of the promised "democratic lovefest", Russia was plundered, humiliated, ridiculed, and fully colonized. In truth, from 1991 to 1996 Russia became Uncle Sam's "poodle", a thoroughly dysfunctional society run by freaks very similar to the ones sitting in Kiev today. By 1996 the situation became so bad as to be really explosive and Uncle Sam had to tread more carefully, with less visible arrogance, but it took the coming to power of Putin to really begin to reverse that trend. The period between 1991 and 1996 saw Russia suffer from human and material losses fully comparable to the kind of losses one would expect from nuclear war. During those years, the Russian society began noticing a strange lack of friendliness from the West: for all the back-slapping and lofty promises of partnership, the West (US and EU) gave a standing ovation the Chechen Wahabis even though they were at least as crazy and bloodthirsty as ISIS is today. Likewise, the US and EU broke all of their international obligations and jointly attacked both Yugoslavia and Serbia. Russians were aware of that, but they still held a general sympathy for Europeans who were mostly nice, polite, apparently well-intentioned people. Besides, one could always blame all these bizarre policies on the "legacy of the Cold War" cop-out. Finally, Eltsin and Milosevic were jerks, no doubt about that, and Russia was weak and, frankly, ugly. So most Russians kind of understood that the US and EU did not feel to kindly inclined towards Russia.

In a futile attempt to "behave", Russians tried hard to be "nice" and "hyper-democratic". They let the Latvians introduce apartheid, they agreed on sanctions against Iran, they saw NATO gradually encircle Russian with military bases and warships and they saw the US treat Russia with open contempt. In response, Russia made some rather vapid protests, participated in useless negotiations and let the USA spend 5 billions dollars in the Ukraine and even overturn elections.

In exchange for a total Russian submission, the West eventually "generously" agreed to stop supporting the Chechen Wahabis who had been defeated by the joint efforts of Vladimir Putin and Akhmad Hadji Kadyrov (and his son, Ramzan) anyway. Then, right when the hopelessly pro-western Dmitri Medvedev came to power and the hopes for the further subjugation of Russia were at an all time high, Saakashvili blew it all by listening to US Neocons and attacking South Ossetia. And here, for the very first time, Russia said "niet" and proceeded to smash the Georgian military even though the local force ratio were very much in the favor of Georgia and the Georgian forces better equipped. The US and NATO backed Georgian military, which some "experts" had referred to as a "tough nut to crack" for the "corrupt Russian military" but which was nevertheless destroyed in all of three days. And then, suddenly and for the first time, western politicians began to doubt their own propaganda: the quasi instantaneous defeat of Georgia, the lightening fast mobilization of the Black Sea fleet and the fact that the Russian Air Force achieved air superiority just 2 days after suffering some very humiliating initial losses, all that left a very bad taste in the mouths those who had believed in western military superiority myths.

Day after day, love turns gray, like the skin of a dying man (Roger Waters)

In Russia, however, this was also left a very bad taste. While the overwhelming majority of Russians had no hostility towards Georgia or the Georgian people, Russians simply could not understand two basic things:

a) How could the people in the West even seriously suggest that Russia was the aggressor when the Georgia attack was broadcast live TV?b) How could the people in the West support such an obvious psychopath, scumbag and freak like Saakashvili?

Later we saw the West openly betray Russia at the UN over Libya only to immediately to turn to Syria with exactly the same intentions. At least the USA defended their own national interests (as their 1%er deep state understood it). But Europe? Why was France taking center stage in Libya and Syria? What was going on? What was wrong with these people?

How this works. Follow one of the links. Should you decide to buy that item, or any item, I get a small percentage, which helps to maintain this site. Your cost is the same, whether you buy from my link or not. But if the item remains in the cart too long, I don't get a thing.

RT - News

Disclaimer:

The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of No Bread and Circuses For You.

FAIR USE STATEMENT

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

We only post a portion of the article here. We encourage you to click the link at the bottom of each post to read the full story.

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.